I can remember vividly the first time I saw a smartwatch. Huddled in a group of 13-year-old schoolboys, we eagerly watched as our classmate demonstrated the capabilities of the new gadget perched on his wrist. Texts, phone calls, music, all bundled together into a discreet watch which could easily slip past a teacher’s eye. Of course, our minds raced with the possibilities this new technology offered. Could answers to a test be texted to the watch midway through? Or could music played from it be used to disrupt and derail an otherwise dreary afternoon lesson? The priorities of a schoolboy are often somewhat predictable.

Looking back though, the impact of the smartwatch on the day-to-day life of its wearer pales in comparison with the potential impact of today’s emergent technology: smart glasses. These glasses, entry-level models of which cost less than £250, promise users a myriad of life-enhancing features: live translation; video and audio capture from the wearer’s personal point of view; and, increasingly, constant access to an AI assistant to facilitate notetaking, provide reminders, and give real-time answers to queries.

There are, naturally, obvious benefits to this technology. In a world where we are more isolated from each other than ever before, the opportunity to have live translation that enables real-world interaction should not be downplayed. Similarly, some may argue that providing the public with a means to quickly and accurately record video and images without recourse to a separate device could lead to crucial evidence being captured for legal cases or future scientific study. There is also a strong case to be made for the ability of these glasses to aid those with sight loss and other accessibility needs. However, there is growing public concern about the benefit-cost ratio that smart glasses actually represent.

Harassment

In May of this year, the non-profit Good Law Project described smart glasses as “a clear risk to women’s safety”. Citing research compiled by the BBC, Good Law Project reported that hundreds of videos of women had been recorded without their consent using smart glasses. Further BBC investigations have found that nonconsensual footage of women has been captured in seemingly benign situations, such as leaving the beach or simply entering a shop. Once such recordings have been uploaded online, some women have been told that removal of them is a “paid service”.

The proliferation of smart glasses serves only to increase worries about the growing misuse of technology for abuse and harassment. In January, the domestic violence and abuse charity Refuge reported that in 2025, its specialist Technology-Facilitated Abuse and Economic Empowerment team – which handles cases involving tech-facilitated abuse – saw a 62% increase in referrals compared to the previous year. The charity also specifically raised concerns over smart glasses, reporting that it is seeing “a rise in the weaponisation of smart accessories, including glasses used to secretly record survivors”.

These fears were only heightened in February when the New York Times reported that Meta planned to embed a facial recognition technology into its smart glasses called “Name Tag”. This feature would reportedly facilitate the identification of people in frame and use an AI assistant to retrieve further information about them. Though arguments in favour of this feature have been put forward, with Forbes claiming that “harassers and criminals might think twice about attacking, knowing that their image is being captured”, the potential for abuse of this technology is self-evident. For prominent but low-profile UHNWIs, the prospect of being identified in public spaces through such technology, where once they might not have been recognised, could prove particularly alarming. According to WIRED, Meta had begun shipping the code for this technology to its products as early as January 2026; however, a day after WIRED’s report, the code was removed.

Security and intellectual property

Worries also abound regarding the potential security vulnerability posed by smart glasses to public institutions and private enterprises. In June 2026, the Greek media outlet Ekathimerini reported that Greek Health Minister Adonis Georgiadis had faced fierce criticism both from opposition politicians and from social media users over his wearing of smart glasses during an official visit. While Mr Georgiadis has stated that the glasses comply with data protection rules and that no footage was recorded with the glasses during the formal visit, the situation offers a glimpse of the enterprise and institutional risks these glasses could create.

The primary worry here is that there is a strong possibility the use of smart glasses may lead to the leak of confidential data. This does not necessarily have to come through a breach of the technology by a threat actor – though no doubt there are hostile parties who have noted Mr Georgiadis’ use of this technology and may, even now, be searching for potential vulnerabilities. Another concerning possibility is a leak through human error. As noted above, one of the fundamental features of these glasses is their ability to capture and, in some cases, stream video from the perspective of the wearer. All it takes is one momentary lapse in concentration and public officials, company executives, or private individuals may find themselves streaming or uploading footage of confidential data to the internet, resulting in an irreparable situation.

One of Meta’s most prominent rebuttals to this worry is that it is clear to users and third parties when footage is being captured by the glasses via a recording light which is illuminated during use. However, in June, PC Mag reported that modders on Facebook Marketplace were offering to remove this indicator light for a $100 fee. Meta removed the live-stream feature from its second-generation glasses – though first-generation glasses maintain this feature – nevertheless, there are still ways this worry may manifest.

In February, the Swedish media outlet Svenska Dagbladet reported that Kenyan subcontractors hired by Meta to annotate footage captured by users of smart glasses to prepare training content for its AI models were claiming to have seen “deeply private” footage including bathroom visits, bank cards, and naked bodies. The article highlights uncertainties over the treatment of user data captured through the glasses, especially data associated with a user’s interaction with smart glasses’ in-built AI. An EU data protection lawyer consulted for the article claimed that there is a potential transparency problem where “users may not realise that the camera is recording when they begin speaking to the AI assistant” and that once “material has been fed into the models, the user in practice loses control over how it is used”. In addition to obvious concerns about access to private footage, a further worry here is that, should footage containing confidential data somehow end up as part of a dataset for AI training, there could be severe implications including security breaches and legal action. 

There are, therefore, significant risks to private enterprises and public institutions if policies regarding the use of smart glasses by employees and representatives are not implemented.

Young People Don’t Dance Anymore

A personal worry about the proliferation of smart glasses pertains specifically to how they will impact young people. Discussion pages on platforms such as Reddit are increasingly full of accounts from young people who feel inhibited by the knowledge that any move they make could be documented and preserved forever online. In December 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported on the phenomenon that clubbers and concertgoers were increasingly inert for fear of being captured and ridiculed online. In the words of Grammy-award winning artist Tyler, The Creator:

“I asked some friends why they don’t dance in public and some said because of the fear of being filmed. I thought damn, a natural form of expression and a certain connection they have with music is now a ghost. It made me wonder how much of our human spirit got killed because of the fear of being a meme, all for having a good time.” 

Smart glasses represent yet another way young people are likely to feel trapped by technology that is supposedly meant to improve our lives. It is another way in which we erode the freedoms we have, until now, believed inherent to childhood and which are crucial to growing up: the freedom to make mistakes, the freedom to test boundaries, the freedom to look a bit silly. For children who also carry the responsibility of upholding familial reputation, this represents an even greater consideration. I am forever grateful that the extent of technological intrusion into my childhood was merely another means to being cheeky at the back of the classroom. I truly feel for those who may have their – what should be carefree – childhood moments broadcast to the world.

Ongoing Petition

At the time of writing, there is an open petition to the UK Parliament which calls for the immediate ban on the sale and promotion of smart glasses that contain recording capabilities using existing laws such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the General Data Protection Regulation, and the Data Protection Act. The petition expressly notes that “AI capabilities allow people to ‘dox’ others, in real time, to create an inhospitable environment in our towns and spaces, fostering a climate of fear and menace, especially for vulnerable groups, including children.” It currently has  6,907 of the required 10,000 signatures for a government response. One thing is certain: discussions about the use, risks, benefits, and legalities of smart glasses have a long way to go yet.